Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday June 17, 2010 @09:47AM
from the that's-my-style-i-like-to-kick-em-when-they're-down dept.

betterunixthanunix writes "Another lawsuit has been filed against LimeWire, this time by the National Music Publishers Association. They claim that LimeWire also damaged them, and seek $150,000 per infringement, putting the maximum possible damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. LimeWire seems to have become the latest music industry punching bag. 'David Israelite, chief executive of the publishers' association, said his organization had decided to bring the complaint because most publishers were not represented in the record company lawsuit and they were now confident that they had a winning case. ... LimeWire, which says it is trying to start a new paid subscription model, said in a statement on Wednesday that it welcomed the publishers to the table. '"

The $150K figure is coming from their argument that each song has probably been downloaded by many people (99 cents per song * 150K downloaders, perhaps), and thus represents the total amount of lost revenue. We'll see how well that holds up in court, doesn't seem to have caught on so far.

Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.

Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.

To demonstrate how ridiculous that number is, in the case Apple vs. Psystar with Psystar selling hundreds of computers with illegal copies of MacOS X installed, Apple asked for $30,000 for copyright infringement by copying MacOS X 10.5, and another $30,000 for copying MacOS X 10.6. Not per copy, but for all copies made. Apparently Apple didn't see making computers, cracking OS X copy protection, duplicating the software, installing it, and then selling it, as "willful infringement", but just as ordinary inf

Negatory, Ghost Rider. The $150,000 figure is the highest amount of statutory damages [wikipedia.org] available under the Copyright Act [copyright.gov] for willful infringement of a copyrighted work. Statutory damages have no bearing on actual damages. That's why commercially unsuccessful movie producers have gone around suing alleged infringers: the plaintiffs don't have to show any actual damages to get a huge payday.

To demonstrate how ridiculous that number is, in the case Apple vs. Psystar with Psystar selling hundreds of computers with illegal copies of MacOS X installed, Apple asked for $30,000 for copyright infringement by copying MacOS X 10.5, and another $30,000 for copying MacOS X 10.6. Not per copy, but for all copies made. Apparently Apple didn't see making computers, cracking OS X copy protection, duplicating the software, installing it, and then selling it, as "willful infringement", but just as ordinary infringement.

That's completely, entirely incorrect. Apple was not seeking statutory damages at all, but actual damages, which they could prove because Psystar helpfully kept sales records. They got $2.7 million in settlement.

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

Although I generally agree with you, it is logical to ask for damages that are higher than what you really lost. If I evade taxes to the tune of 1000$, and the court fines me for 1000$, I have no reason not to evade taxes again. Thats why I need to pay the 1000$ + statuary damages/added fines/etc.The same is here. If the total damage you, allegedly, caused are 60$, the law suit should be for more than that, in order to deter you from doing it again. Of course, 150,000$ per song is excessive, but you catch m

Should limewire be fined at all. Sure they contribute no differently than public roads contribute to crime. Limewire to be competitive has to provide the cheapest file sharing service possible, it cannot afford to monitor and inspect every file shared using their software, after all it is not their network, not their hardware and they are not selecting the files to be traded.

As always it should be up to the people who feel their current copyrights have been infringed to prove infringement occurred and to

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

That would be logical. But Congress forgot to include logic when they passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Tyranny. (Probably didn't read it either.)

Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

Either you advocate that the copyright holder find those individuals and go after each of them individually for the 3 copies each person made, or, you reject the notion of personal responsibility entirely (in which case I'd like you to pay the electric bill I ran up and the car insurance I purchased, y'know, for the sake of consistency). Since those two positions are mutually exclusive, you may choose only one.

[...] or, you reject the notion of personal responsibility entirely (in which case I'd like you to pay the electric bill I ran up and the car insurance I purchased, y'know, for the sake of consistency). Since those two positions are mutually exclusive, you may choose only one.

Well I was going to choose to pay your bills but you posted as AC, so never mind.

>>>Each of the 3 people you uploaded to upload to another 3, who each upload to another 3......

Not my problem. If I kill a guy, and then give the gun to somebody else who kills 3 more people, I'm not responsible for that. I'm only responsible for my OWN actions not those down the line. Similarly a son is not responsible for the crimes of the father. That form of justice was eliminated long ago.

I have never in my life uploaded a song to 150,000 people. My radio on demonoid hovers around 3.0, so the most they can *logically* claim against me is that I illegally made 3 copies of their the song. So $1 times 3 times however many songs they can prove I infringed (say 20) == $60 fine plus the record company's associated court costs.

I wouldn't even call that logical. If somebody else shares the song, they're the one infringing, not you. Theoretically the same individual song transfer could rack up a huge pile of fines from different people.

Your upload can be replicated endlessly and theoretically traced back as the ultimate source for millions of downloads.

He is not liable for any re-uploads made from the copy that he had illegally made for someone. He's only liable for those copies that were directly made with his participation.

To me, a share ratio sounds like the most reasonable way to estimate the actual damage amount. If it's 3x for a given file, then 3 copies of file have been made. It's still an approximation, of course, as in practice the file is not atomic, and he had probably shared some bits of it with more than 3 people - but, on the other hand, ha

Depends on what you mean by "worth". If you mean what it can be sold for, you're absolutely correct. If you mean the benefit to its listener, you're absolutely wrong.

And that's why capitalism doesn't work well when we're talking about ideas and artistic creations - the societal benefits of an idea go up the more people have easy access, while the financial value of that same idea goes down. This is different from, say, a toaster, where selling one toaster has no effect on the financial value of another iden

To what end? It's not like the thousands (if not millions) of people who support the Arizona law are being listened to. I've given up on complaining to congress. They don't even listen when you threaten to have them voted out. Money talks in Washington and if you don't have money you aren't heard. I can't tell you how many times I've emailed congress (literally thousands of times) about various issues where I wasn't in the minority (or at least, the mostly non-vocal) with the position I held and I get the same old tired form response with a few key phrases tossed it to make it look like they even care.

Want to fix this? Stop buying RIAA member's products. If that means giving up your favorite bands, so be it. I'm willing to go completely indy (or even music-less) if it means someone finally listens. Don't give the RIAA your money. Don't go to concerts by member bands. Don't engage in gross copyright infringement of their members (or at all, really). The NMPA hasn't been hurt by this. They just want a piece of what they see as the gravy train. They are just another four-letter abbreviation. Stop consuming (this encompasses illegal downloading as well as legitimate purchases) products from their members, too. Turn to indy bands who have trader-friendly and file-sharing friendly policies. Turn to indy labels who have the same. Support those who support your point of view. Lobby the bands instead of congress. Enough people telling them that they will not consume their product at all will get them to change their point of view rather quickly. No music artist wants to be poor and destitute. No group can have concerts if no fans will show up.

This is a two-way street. If consuming their products lets them keep the old way of doing things, stop consuming their products.

1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services. The RIAA is a bunch of lawyers and office workers whose purpose is to go around suing people among other things.

2. Everything you say here will go largely unheard because the people who are buying don't come to slashdot and wouldn't listen if you took the message to the streets.

We live in a society filled with really stupid people doing a lot of really stupid things. Accept it and move on. You are preaching to the choir on this but you're also a bit wrong. It is pretty hard to escape contributing to the RIAA's food supply. First you have to stop buying music. Next, you have to stop watching movies and TV shows and listening to the radio because the music industry gets a cut when music is included in other works, performances, playbacks and presentations. And once you have done those two simple things, you have to convince the rest of the world to do the same thing. The first two parts are relatively trivial. That last part will prove to be impossible.

"convince the rest of the world to do the same thing." - crap, I KNEW there was a catch here somewhere!

We've all heard people referred to as "sheeple". It's not so "in" as it was just a few years ago, but we've all heard it. The flock is led just anywhere the shepherd wants it to go. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a shepherd. The flock prefers to follow some stupid pied piper. I guess they don't m

1. No one except the record labels buys any RIAA products or services.

Incorrect; the RIAA is the major record labels, just like the Teamsters Union is the truck drivers. The truck drivers have collective bargaining, the record labels have collective suing.

First you have to stop buying music.

Wrong again -- you only have to stop buying RIAA music. There are far more independant musicians than "signed" musicians, you just don't hear them because the radio only plays RIAA musicians. Go down to your local bar on

You say to change this you need to stop buying RIAA members products, but that will only lead to "See, our sales dropped due to people who are illegally downloading our songs..." - arguments on their behalf, which leads to even more frantic prosecution of downloaders...

And you missed the part where it doesn't matter whether there's any piracy at all. All the parent poster said was "our sales are falling. it must be pirates" as used. If there's no evidence of pirates, they must be hiding. they will (and you too) use circular reasoning to ensure that they get paid.

Don't just stop buying RIAA music - stop buying RIAA music and put the money into non-affiliated bands. Make sure that these bands publish their earnings. When the RIAA goes to lawmakers and says 'piracy is hurting our sales' send them documents proving that their competitors are doing very well. Make sure that you send the same information to anyone running against incumbent candidates who support pro-RIAA legislation so that they can run TV adverts showing people left destitute by RIAA lawsuits saying

No, stop sharing their music. If you want to stop this, stop putting their stuff up on torrent sites and limewire and YouTube and wherever else. If you want a song, go buy it on Amazon or wherever. I know they don't want you to rip a CD (or your friend's CD) and put their songs on your iPod either, but really that's uneforceable and not really worth worrying about.... Just stop sharing online.

Yes, I do pay attention to history. The only thing murder leads to is more murder. I also know that empty rhetoric is great for whipping people into a frenzy, but beyond that is mostly useless. If you pay attention to history, you would also know this.

Negative. The only way to fix this, given what you say about congress, is to start killing RIAA members, AND congress members.

That's the ONLY way this bullshit will EVER stop, is to show them with absolute certainty that we will no longer tolerate this shit.

It would be interesting if your battle call was heeded. What if the nerds at/. really do decide to start a revolution? I imagine the first order of business would be to draft a new constitution and then arguing over whether to use 4 or 8 spaces for tabs and whether or not to line wrap at 80 character.

And for civil rights, people were willing to get in each others faces and do more than send off angry emails. I have yet to see one even medium-scale protest about this except online.

And by changing our purchasing habits, we are giving voice to dissent, we are loudly challenging an unjust law. In this case, though, the civil disobedience aspect of it is NEVER argued because it is a meaningless argument. How does your civil disobedience in this manner provide you with no benefit while still making your point

How long did you try that for? Not very long, I imagine. Get documentation from the companies that you advocate (indy labels and bands) buying from to show that sales aren't down to gross copyright infringement, but they are down because you've taken your money elsewhere.

Why not just play this out? Isn't there some legal strategy LimeWire could pursue to not only continue losing (while taking it to higher and higher courts), but to increase their damages by orders of magnitude each time? After they owe more than the combined wealth of all resources humanity could ever potentially obtain, surely someone somewhere will realize something was wrong with that picture.

On a related note, has anyone ever sat down and thought of bankrupting the music industry with legal fees? That is to say, to make their legal bills exceed their revenue, and for all defendants to basically be unable to pay a dime? They would see dollar signs all the way until they starved to death...

After they owe more than the combined wealth of all resources humanity could ever potentially obtain

Unfortunately that would not actually lead to a recognition that these damage sums are too high; rather, it would simply lead to a conclusion that there is no valid way for Limewire to do its business, and it would be shut down. Now, if we were dealing with an individual being required to pay these ridiculous amounts of money, then we might see some real reform. "Might" is the operative word there...

$150,000 is the maximum the law allows for statutory damages. It does not consider actual damages caused by the infringement. You can sue for those too, you just have to prove the number you come up with; which is hard. Asking for statutory damages is easy.

So, why not all the money on earth? Because that would require them to work for it.

Why not sue CD-Drive manufactures, for allowing cds to be downloaded to harddrives to be shared. Sue Cisco for allowing p2p traffic to go across their networks. Sue Microsoft just because they suck. Or you could work on adjusting your failing business structure.

The difference between Limewire and CD Drive manufacturers is that Limewire actively encouraged the use of their services to pirate media. Prosecute the guy who tells you their guns are for shooting people, not the guy who tells your their guns are for hunting.

Yes. I can go door to door selling knives for the purpose of cutting food but the second I start selling the same knives for the purpose of slitting your wrists or killing your neighbors pets, it becomes something the courts will decide.

If I open a gun store for hunting and protection, that's fine. If I open the same gun store and put a sign out that encourages you to shoot police on sight so you never have to worry about tickets again? Pretty sure you aren't going to be in business long.

The last time I checked. They have an agreement you must check that says you will not pirate media. Limewire has legal uses and illegal uses. If a product has a legal use, but the user uses it for an illegal use it isn't the manufacture’s fault, but the consumer who did the illegal action. That is why it is not illegal to make and sell guns, even though they can be used for crime.

Limewire was sued under the inducement doctrine. [wikipedia.org] If a manufacturer or provider of a service induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable. I don't know the specifics for Limewire, but they probably, at some point in the past, advertised Limewire as helping users download music, movies, games, etc. without having to pay for them. There are probably also internal company emails in which the executives/managers acknowledge that illegal use is important for the success of the product. These were the things that got Grokster in deep shit.

The betamax doctrine isn't much of a shield to secondary liability anymore, at least when the manufacturer/service provider's business is greatly benefited from the copyright infringement.

If a manufacturer or provider of a service that induces customers to use the product for copyright infringement, then they can be held liable.

I think there is a strong case that they do, let me start with the following so you can see where I'm coming from.

Postulate: Downloading doesn't violate copyright owners right to control distribution, uploading, however, does. We all talk about downloading, but we're talking about a system that combines consumption and distribution. The courts have never been leveraged against leechers or non-p2p downloads. I feel this is strong evidence that even the RIAA must agree this to be the case or they would b

"The difference between Limewire and CD Drive manufacturers is that Limewire actively encouraged the use of their services to pirate media"

You're wrong about that. That was FROSTWIRE that did that, as Limewire is open source (stupid move when you're trying to charge for a pro version that only needs a single bit flipped to become pro) and Frostwire made the 'pro' version available for free. Frostwire actively advertised the piracy aspect.

Do you really think that by virtue of being GPLed, the project is immune? Lawsuits can still be filed against the developers, and worse yet, those developers may contribute code as individuals -- opening themselves up to personal bankruptcy should a judge rule against them. Look at what happened with GPLed DVD playing software.

The fact that it's hippyware means that the project can survive bad things happening to the developers. Someone else can pick it up and keep working on it. If these people live in a different jurisdiction, they're safe. DVD playing software is an excellent example. Projects like FFMPEG and VLC began in France and continue to have active contributors from countries that don't have US-style laws. The end result? If you want to hire someone to work on a video CODEC, you're better off looking in Europe th

There is a flaw in step #2 of the algorithm. Specifically, it does not account for major developers that exist in jurisdictions where laws and/or legal doctrines that allow for such lawsuits to be successful apply.

That works for books because they are physical objects. We're dealing with digital data. There is no such thing as "lending" in the digital world, something that book publishers will now have to deal with since e-books are becoming popular. They got a free ride so far while the music and film industry had to grapple with this concept, and they still haven't figured it out.

The closest thing to a public library would be one of those online jukebox services that charges a monthly fee, such as Napster. Except instead of end users paying the fee, the county would pay the fee out of tax revenue.

More like, now that someone else won a victory in court, with no valid data to support the verdict, they feel it should be easy enough to point a finger at that verdict and tell the court "me too". Its a lot easier to sit back and wait for someone else to set a legal president and jump on the moving band wagon than it is to push that wagon uphill in the first place. LimeWire may be guilty as hell for aiding and abetting a crime under the US copyright laws, but they did not download any songs, period. To force them to pay 'per song' is a farce no matter what the price, because there is no substantial proof of them ever downloading songs. Someone else did that.

...that when LimeWire usage peaked there was no really viable online music store in most parts of the world. So basically the publishers ignored the market, the market supplied to it's own demand, and now the publishers seem to think they are entitled to ridiculous sums of money?

One of the things that I find really unjust about our system, taken as a whole (which is dangerous in a federal system, I know, but bear with me) is that when a normal person is robbed, the state gets to fine the robber and keep the money. The victim of the theft is left with some abstract "justice" in the form of an imprisoned thief and the state pockets the fine instead of transferring it, tax free, to the victim of the theft.

No government, not in the even the feds, turn over the fine directly to the victim of a real theft, but they want to enable $150k in damages for a copy of a song that retails for a $0.99?

The average man gets, at best, a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that "justice is served." He cannot beat or shoot the guy robbing him blind unless the robber is also menacing him, so in many cases, common citizens cannot even use force to defend their property as they see it being stolen. Yet, the feds hand over a court room nuclear weapon to big corporations...

No government, not in the even the feds, turn over the fine directly to the victim of a real theft, but they want to enable $150k in damages for a copy of a song that retails for a $0.99?

The $150k in damages is for a license to distribute the song. Do you think Apple pays $0.99 once in exchange for putting a song on the iTunes Music Store? Michael Jackson paid $225k each for the distribution rights of a bunch of Beatles' songs. The whole "but it only costs $.99 cents!" argument ignores this reality.

One of the things that I find really unjust about our system, taken as a whole (which is dangerous in a federal system, I know, but bear with me) is that when a normal person is robbed, the state gets to fine the robber and keep the money. The victim of the theft is left with some abstract "justice" in the form of an imprisoned thief and the state pockets the fine instead of transferring it, tax free, to the victim of the theft.

You're confusing criminal and civil law. Restitution need not be a goal of criminal trials (although it's often added to sentences anyway). But the victim is free to pursue a judgment in a civil trial if he thinks he's been wronged, regardless of the criminal outcome. That's what civil courts are there for.

Pardon my ignorance, and I suppose I could use Google and all that... But who uses LimeWire these days? What kind of network is it using, and is there content there that you can't find elsewhere? I've always found a combination of BitTorrent and eMule to work well.

The people I know who use Limewire are teens, tweens, and nontechnical college kids. Limewire uses the Gnutella G2 protocol, though it can also handle bittorrent downloads as well. Content, I'm guessing, is fairly consistent between the eMule and Gnutella networks. Bittorrent works well for complete albums, but is a bit less adept at working for single songs (which is what most of my limewire using friends tend to do).

Like most things in life - especially technical ones, popularity and ease of use trump tec

Mark Gorton is a confident guy. He's confident about his ideas. He's confident about his enthusiasms. And he's confident that his successes -- like making money on Wall Street and promoting alternative transportation in New York -- provide a record that backs him up.

But that confidence faces a new test. Two weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that he and the popular file-sharing service he created, LimeWire, were liable for copyright infringement and could be forced to pay up to $450 million in damages.

Mr. Gorton, 43, says he did not think it would come to this point. He thought that the record industry, sometime since the lawsuit was filed in 2006, would come to appreciate his vision for the future of LimeWire -- a paid subscription service providing unlimited downloads of licensed songs -- and want to join forces instead of continuing litigation.

"Perhaps I was naïve," Mr. Gorton said in an interview last week at LimeWire's office near Chinatown in Manhattan. "If I knew when the lawsuit started what I know now about the music industry, maybe we would have done something different."

first wall street trader i ever felt sorry for. his other passion is alternative transportation: he rides his bike to work every day. not your average wall street sleazeball

and he idealistically thought that an honest p2p play was a good idea, downplaying the shortsighted sociopathology of the music publishing industry. bad bet

now if limewire were some open source project with nothing but pseudoanonymous college students behind it, it would still be sued into oblivion, but there would be no follow up lawsuit seeking to drain the defendants of all their worth. this guy, on the other hand, is going to made destitute, simply for the crime of thinking positively about the real future of media. unfortunately, the zombie legal past of media has marked him for death

music industry: the next limewire won't be fronted by anyone, and there will be no way to block it, and no one to sue. the internet has permanently changed the legal status quo of media. you have a bunch of laws from the days of vinyl records, that are simply unenforceable in the age of the internet. your job now is shut up and die, blood sucking assholes

YOU'RE NOT NEEDED ANYMORE. YOU AND YOUR UNENFORCEABLE LAWS ARE A HISTORICAL ANACHRONISM. JUST FUCKING DIE ALREADY

What is the point. Its not like Limewire actually HAS any money. You can sue them for 100 million or 10 Quadrillion, it doesn't matter as you won't ever see it.

The only thing I can see is the industry trying to set precedent for awarding maximum statutory damages. Which IMO is totally wrong in the first place. Does ANY sane person actually really believe that 150k punishment actually suits the crime for COPYING ONE SONG. It is just silly.